abstract - kku research journalresjournal.kku.ac.th/article/15_08_751.pdfbased on the analysis of a...
TRANSCRIPT
751The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
การวิเคราะห์การใช้คำาเชื่อมในงานเขียนความเรียงเชิงสาธกของนักศึกษาไทยที่เรียนภาษาอังกฤษในฐานะภาษาต่างประเทศ
The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays of Thai EFL Learners
อังคณา ทองพูน พัฒนศร (Angkana Tongpoon Patanasorn)1
บทคัดย่อ
งานวิจัยนี้มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อ 1) เปรียบเทียบการใช้คำาเชื่อมในการเขียนเชิงสาธกของนักศึกษาไทยที่เรียน
ภาษาอังกฤษในฐานะภาษาต่างประเทศกับเจ้าของภาษาที่เป็นนักศึกษาและ2)ศึกษาถึงการใช้คำาเชื่อมในงานเขียนที่มี
ระดบัคะแนนการเขยีนตา่งกนัในนกัศกึษาไทยผลวจิยัแสดงใหเ้หน็วา่ทัง้นกัศกึษาไทยและนกัศกึษาทีเ่ปน็เจา้ของภาษา
มรีปูแบบการใชค้ำาเชือ่มทีค่อ่นขา้งคลา้ยคลงึกนัใน3ดา้นคอืดา้นความหมายตำาแหนง่และคำาเชือ่มทีใ่ชบ้อ่ยๆจากการ
ศกึษาถงึการใชค้ำาเชือ่มในงานเขยีนเชงิสาธกของนกัศกึษาไทยทีม่รีะดบัคะแนนตา่งกนัพบวา่งานเขยีนทีค่ะแนนสงูจะ
มกีารใชค้ำาเชือ่มมากกวา่งานเขยีนทีค่ะแนนนอ้ยอยา่งมนียัสำาคญั(p <.05)และมกีารใชจ้ำานวนคำาและกลุม่คำาเชือ่มตา่งๆ
มากกว่าทั้งทางด้านกลุ่มความหมายและหน้าที่ของคำาเชื่อม
Abstract
The current study explores the use of linking adverbials in a Thai EFL learner corpus by comparing it with a
US student corpus and focusing on occurrences of linking adverbials in different writing quality. The results revealed
that the Thai learner corpus and the US student corpus shared several similar features in usage patterns of semantic
categories(i.e.,result/referenceandenumerate/additionandsummation),syntacticforms(i.e.,singleadverbials),
andmostfrequentwords(e.g., so, however, therefore).Inregardstowritingquality,higherqualityessays(i.e.,Score
3)containedsignificantlymorelinkingadverbialsthanweakerones(i.e.,Scores1and2)(p<.05).Inaddition,in
moreeffectiveessays,ahighernumberofandawiderrangeoflinkingadverbials,differentsemanticcategories,and
semantic functions were found.
คำ�สำ�คัญ: ภาษาศาสตร์คลังข้อมูลการเขียนเชิงสาธกภาษาอังกฤษในฐานะภาษาต่างประเทศ
Keywords: corpuslinguistics,argumentativewriting,EnglishasaForeignLanguage
1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, e-mail: [email protected]
752The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners วารสารวิจัย มข. 15 (8) : สิงหาคม 2553
The Use of Linking Adverbials in the
Argumentative Essays of Thai EFL
Learners
After the release of Halliday and Hasan’s
Cohesion in English (1976), interest in the studyof
cohesion and coherence received considerable attention.
Studies related tocohesivedevices,both lexical and
grammatical,haveflourished.Oneofthemajorandmost
widely studied grammatical devices is linking adverbials.
This grammatical element has attracted a number of
researchersinthefieldbecauselinkingadverbialusage
is evidently a challenging area for second language
learnerstomaster(McCarthy,1991;Lorenz,1998).This
isduetoseveralfactors.First,sincelinkingadverbials
arenotusuallyobligatory,learnersoftenfinditdifficult
todecidewhenandwhennottousethem(Conrad,1999;
Halliday,2004).Typesandquantityoflinkingadverbials
aredeterminedbyregistersbecauseeachregister(e.g.,news
and conversation) requires a different communicative
functionsregister(e.g.,addition,apposition,etc.)(Biber
etal.,1999;Conrad,1999).Finally,differentrhetorical
structuresinthefirstandsecondlanguagesmayinfluence
learners’ choice of linking adverbials, resulting in
learners’misuse, under, and overuse (Altenberg and
Tapper,1998;Kang,2005).
In particular, some research studies have
shown that learners underused and overused certain
types of linking adverbials when compared to reference
corpora(e.g.,Boltonetal.,2002;GrangerandTyson,
1996).Thecurrentstudyprovidesfurtherinvestigation
into the analysis of EFL learners’ linking adverbial use
incomparisonwithnative students’writing.Also, it
throws light on EFL learners’ use of linking adverbial
inessaysofdifferentwritingquality,anareawhichhas
to date received little attention.
Linking Adverbials as Cohesive Devices
Linkingadverbials,orconjunctiveadverbials,
were brought to attention in 1976 byHalliday and
Hasan’s pioneering description of textual cohesion
in English.According toHalliday andHasan, text
can be made coherent through two types of cohesive
devices:grammaticalandlexical.Linkingadverbials,
as part of conjunctions, are one of the grammatical
cohesive devices used to mark relations in which one
unitideaelaborates,extends,orenhancesanotherunit
thatfollows.AccordingtoHallidayandHasan,linking
adverbialscanbedividedinto4groups:additive(e.g.,
furthermore, in addition, besides), adversative (e.g.,
however, nevertheless, instead), casual (e.g.,
consequently, on this basis, therefore), and temporal
(e.g.,after that, meanwhile, previously).
Basedontheanalysisofa largeamountof
spokenandwrittendata,Biberetal.(1999)re-categorized
linking adverbials and included two more categories.
In theirLongman Grammar of Written and Spoken
English (LGWSE), linking adverbials are comprised
ofsixcategories:enumeration/addition(e.g.,first of
all, next, finally, lastly), summation (e.g., in sum, to
conclude, all in all),apposition(e.g.,for example, for
instance, namely),result/inference(e.g.,consequently,
thus, as a result),contrast/concession(e.g.,in contrast,
alternatively, though),andtransition(e.g.,incidentally,
by the way).
According toBiber et al. (1999), linking
adverbials are found more commonly in academic
prose,compared toother registers (i.e.,conversation
andnews).Inacademicprose,awiderangeoflinking
adverbials is used because the writer needs to mark
explicit relationships between ideas in order to develop
theargumentofthetext(Conrad,1999).Thesemantic
categoriesthatarecommonlyusedareresult/inference
relations,followedbyappositive,contrast/concession,
753The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
and enumerative/additive/summative adverbials, and
thelasttypeistransitionadverbials,whicharerarein
the academic prose.
LGWSEalsoreportsthatinacademicprose,
the syntactic structure that is most commonly used is
the single adverb, followedbyprepositional phrases
andothersyntacticstructures(i.e.,finiteandnonfinite
clauses).Linking adverbials can occur in the initial
position(e.g., first, second, or to conclude),themedial
position(e.g.,Einstein, therefore, set to work…),and
thefinalposition(e.g.,You could buy a mini, though).
However,linkingadverbialsoccurmostcommonlyin
initialposition,followedbythemedialposition.Linking
adverbials in the final position are rarely found in
academic prose since they are a feature of interpersonal
interaction. The initial position is found to be the
primary position of linking adverbials since linking
adverbials in this position function as the link between
twoadjunct ideas, thesecondofwhich indicates the
relationshiptothepreviousunit(Conrad,1999).
Previous Studies on Second Language Learners’
Conjunction Use
Itwasfoundthatmostpreviousstudiesfocused
ontheuseoflinkingadverbialsinadvancedlearners,
and compared their use to that of native-speaking
universitystudents.Forexample,AltenbergandTapper
(1998)comparedadvancedEFLlearners’useoflinking
adverbials with a native student corpus to determine
overuse and underuse. The learner corpus was taken
fromtheSwedishICLECorpus (86untimedessays)
and thecontrol corpuswascontributedby70native
speakers. The results showed that the Swedish learners
overusedcertainlinkingadverbials(e.g.,moreover, for
instance, and on the other hand)andunderusedothers
(e.g.,hence, therefore, thus, and however).Similarly,
Chen (2006) also investigated the use of linking
adverbialsinEFLadvancedlearners,whowereTaiwanese
MAstudents inTESOL.He compared aTaiwanese
learner corpusof23academicpaperswithhisconstructed
corpus of 10 published journal papers. The results
showed that Taiwanese learners used slightly more
linking adverbials than the comparison corpus. Some
inappropriate use of linking adverbials was reported.
Forexample,besides,whichisanoralcommunication
feature,wasusedasanadditiveinlearners’academicwriting.
Otherstudieshavecomparedlearners'useof
linkingadverbialstotheadverbialusefoundinlarge,
generalcorpora.Forinstance,MiltonandTsang(1993)
investigatedtheuseofChineselearners’logicallinking
adverbials by comparing it to theBrown andLOB
corpora. The results revealed that learners overused
alllogicalconnectors(e.g.,lastly, besides, moreover,
consequently, furthermore).Similarly,Boltonetal.(2002)
investigatedtheuseoflinkingadverbialsinHongKong
learners’ academic writing and compared it with two
native corpora: InternationalCorpus of English in
Britain (i.e.,native studentcorpus)and International
CorpusofEnglish (i.e.,publishedacademiccorpus).
The results revealed that the two groups of learners
(i.e., second language learners and native students)
overusedmanyconnectortypes(e.g.,so, also, and thus);
the occurrence of underuse was not found.
For those studies which compared learner
essaystolarge,generalcorpora,itisunclearwhetherthe
large,generalcorporaareappropriatetargets.Itmay
not be appropriate to expect learners to use adverbials
in argumentative essays the same way writers use
adverbialsinjournalarticles,textbooks,etc.Inaddition,
studies which tried to compare learner essays with
essays written by native speaking students typically
ignoretheissueofessayquality.Itmaynotbeusefulto
groupalllearnersinonecategory,withoutconsidering
differences within these groups.
754The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners วารสารวิจัย มข. 15 (8) : สิงหาคม 2553
OnlyonestudybyTanko(2004)usedwriting
quality of essays as one factor in her analysis of learners’
linkingadverbialuse.Onlyhighly-ratedargumentative
essayswereincludedinherlearnercorpus;theparticipants
were foreign language learners who were studying
in a master’s program in English. The learner corpus
consisted of 21 argumentative essays produced by
Hungarian university students and it was compared
with a native student corpus. The results showed
that Hungarian learners’ writing contained some
similar features to those of native speakers’ writing
(e.g., positions of adverbial connectors and stylistic
requirements).Learnerstendedtouseahighnumber
of linking adverbials but the range of used linking
adverbials was more restricted than that of native
speakers(i.e.,typesofusedlinkingadverbials).
Even though taking into account learners’
writing quality, Tanko looked at only highly-rated
papers and was not interested in the comparison of
papers with different grading. Information about
learners’ use of linking adverbials in essays of different
writing quality would enhance our knowledge of EFL
learners’linkingadverbialuse.Unfortunately,nostudies
have explored the differences in linking adverbial use
inessaysofdifferentwritingquality.Thecurrentstudy,
therefore,seekstoexamineEFLlearners’useoflinking
adverbials in argumentative writing in comparison with
nativestudentsand,particularlyonessaysofdifferent
writing quality. Furthermore, unlike the previous
research, this study focusedonThaiEFL learners,a
group that has not been studied in regards to the use
of linking adverbials.Accordingly, this study seeks
answers to the following two research questions:
1. Towhat extent does the use of linking
adverbials vary across the learner and native student
corpora?Inparticular,aredifferencesobservedin:
a. The overall frequency with which
linking adverbials are used?
b. The frequencies of particular semantic
categories?
c. The distribution of syntactic forms?
d. The positions of linking adverbials?
e. The frequencies of particular linking
adverbial forms?
2. Within the learner corpus, do higher
quality essays contain more linking adverbials?
Method
Participants and Corpora
Learner corpus. The learner corpus used in this
studyconsistsof163argumentativeessayscontributed
by163Thailearners.Thelearnerswerethirdandfourth
yearundergraduateandgraduatestudentsmajoringin
English studying at Thai universities located in the
northeastregionofThailand.Theessayswereuntimed,
andthetopicswereoftheirownchoosing(e.g.,wearing
uniforms,theequalityofmenandwomen,war,religion,
andmoney). The participantswere allowed to use
languagereferencetools(dictionaries,grammarbooks,
etc.). Learners’essaysweretypedandtheiroriginal
work(e.g.,spellingerrors,grammaticalmistakes)was
kept unaltered.
Inorder torate thequalityof theessays in
thecorpus,theessaysweregradedfollowingthefive-
level scale of iBTTOEFL for independentwriting,
whichevaluatesessaysonfivemainareas(i.e.,topic
development,organization,unityandcoherence,use
of language andword choice), by two raters,who
received intensive rating training. The correlation of
scores between the two raters (r = .79)was strong
(Weigle,2002).Scoresawardedtotheessaysranged
from0to4.However,duetothesmallnumberofthe
755The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
essayswithscores0and4,onlyessaysofscores1to
3were included in this study.For thepresentstudy,
twenty-fouressayswererandomlyselectedfromeach
scorelevel;therefore,therewere72essaysinthefinal
learner corpus used in this study. The total word count
ofthelearnercorpusis24,211words;theaverageessay
lengthofeachscoreis227.38,365.08,and416.33for
Scores1,2,and3respectively(seeTable1).
Table 1. NumberofLearnerEssaysandTotalWordsineachScore
US student corpus.86nativeEnglishspeaking
students enrolled in compulsory freshmen composition
classesin2005and2006atastateuniversityintheUSA
were contacted and asked for permission to include their
argumentativeessaysinthispresentstudy.However,
only12studentsvolunteeredandgaveconsenttouse
them.Therefore,thecorpusofUSstudents’writing
consistsof12untimedargumentativeessays.Theessays
wereclassassignments.Similartothelearnercorpus,the
topicswereofstudents’choices(e.g.,teenpregnancy,
religion,andanimals).ThetotalwordcountoftheUS
studentcorpusis31,394words(seeTable2).Similarto
otherpreviousstudies(e.g.,Chen,2006),theindividual
essays in the US student corpus were much longer than
thelearneressays(i.e.,approximately2,616.17words
peressay).Thismaybeexplainedintermsofwriting
proficiencyandcontextoflearning(nativeversusEFL).
To make the occurrences of linking adverbials within
thetwolearnercorporacomparable,normalizationwas
used;thiswillbeexplainedindetailsundertheanalytical
decisions and data analysis section.
Table 2. NumberofUSStudents’EssaysandTotalWords
Analytical Decisions and Data Analysis
Within the learnercorpus, theparticipants’
essayswerefirstexaminedtoidentifyanyoccurrences
of non-target forms using the framework which
combined frequent linking adverbials mentioned in
Biber et al.(1999) andHalliday andHasan (1976).
Thedecisiontoincludenon-targetfeaturesinlearners’
writing into the analysis was based on the fact that
someofnon-target features (e.g., in the other words
and eventually)wereusedtofulfillthesamefunction
asthetarget-likeforms(e.g.,in other hands to mean
on the other hand, eventually to refer to finally).(See
Table3forthecompletelistoftheanalysisframework.)
756The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners วารสารวิจัย มข. 15 (8) : สิงหาคม 2553
Table 3. Analysis Framework
BoththelearnercorpusandtheUSstudent
corpus were searched to identify occurrences of the
linking adverbial forms listed inTable 3.To count
overall frequencies of the six categories of linking
adverbial in the learner corpus and the US student
corpus,aconcordancingsoftwareMonoConc was used.
An automated search tool provided by the program,
calledabatchsearch,wasusedinaccordancewithhand
editingofKWIC(KeyWordinContext)concordance
lines. After lists of automated counts were generated
bytheprogram,theyweremanuallyexaminedinorder
to eliminate items which do not function as linking
adverbials.Thejudgmentsweremadebaseduponthefact
that one word can have multiple syntactic functions. For
example,theword“so”canbeusedtofulfillthefunction
ofa linkingadverbial to link two ideaunits (e.g.,Oh
well you’ve seen it, so I won’t put it on),anamplifier
modifyingadjectivesoradverbs(e.g.,Oh, it’s so nice),
oraclausalsubstitution(e.g.,I don’t think so).
After thedataweredefined, thenumberof
instances of each linking adverbial and the total number
of adverbials found in each essay score were counted
and presented in percentage and normalization of
occurrences form. Due to the different lengths of
theThai learner corpus and theUS student corpus,
normalizationto10,000wordswasadoptedinorderto
accuratelycompareacrossgroups (fornormalization
methods, seeBiberet al.,1998).Toanswer thefirst
research question, the results from the two corpora
were compared qualitatively using descriptive statistics
(i.e.,rawfrequency,percentage,andnormedcounts).
Inaddition,anindependent-samplet-testwasusedto
compare the difference in instances of linking adverbials
per essay observed in the two groups. To answer the
second question, learners’ use of linking adverbials
wasanalyzedquantitativelyandqualitatively.AOne
WayAnalysis ofVariance (ANOVA) andPostHoc
comparisons using Tukey with an alpha of .05 were used
to compare the occurrences of adverbials used across
the three essay score categories. To further determine
thedifferencesbetweenessaysofeachwritingscore,
descriptive data as well as qualitative analysis were
used to examine types and semantic functions of linking
adverbials under each score.
757The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
Results
This section is structured to answer the two
posted research questions.
Research question 1: To what extent does the
use of linking adverbials vary between the learner and
native speaker in terms of overall frequency, frequencies
of semantic categories, distribution of syntactic forms,
positions of linking adverbials, and most frequent
words?
Overall frequency. Atotalof364and245linking
adverbialswere identified in theThai learnercorpus
andintheUSstudentcorpusrespectively(seeTable4).
Thai learners used twice as many linking adverbials as
USstudents(150.34and78.04timesper10,000words).
Itappearedtobethattheoverallfrequencyoflinking
adverbial instances that occurred in the US student corpus
(78.04timesper10,000words)wassimilartothatofthe
corpus-basedfindingspresentedinLGSWE(slightlyover
70timesper10,000words)(Biberetal.,1999).
Table 4. DescriptionsoftheThaiLearnerandtheUSStudentCorpora
Frequencies of semantic categories. Table
5 presents the frequencies of semantic categories in
percentage and in normed counts per 10,000words.
According to Table 6, result/inference adverbials
accounted for the largest proportion of linking
adverbials that occurred in the Thai learner corpus
(38.19%), followed by enumeration/addition/
summation(37.36%)andcontrast/concession(13.19%).
Transitionswererarelyfound(0.55%).Interestingly,
the pattern of linking adverbial use is similar to that of
USstudents.Thatis,USstudentsalsoshowedahigh
preference for using result/inference (31.53%) and
enumeration/addition/summation (25.16%), with
relatively infrequent use of apposition (3.19%) and
transition (0.32%). Samples of result/inference
adverbials that were frequently used by both groups
were so and therefore; enumerative/additive
adverbials were moreover and furthermore in the
Thai learner corpus and also and moreover in the US
studentcorpus.Whencomparedtothecorpus-based
findings, the pattern used by these two groupswas
slightly different from that presented in LGSWE.
Whereas appositionwas rare in the Thai learner
corpusandtheUSstudentcorpus,theLGSWEreports
that this was the second most frequent type of linking
adverbialusedinacademicprose.Inorderoffrequencyof
estimated percentages the results showed result/
inference (41%), apposition (25%), and contrast/
concession(18%).Appositiveadverbialswhichwere
relatively common features of the academic prose but
were not found in the two corpora were i.e. and e.g..
758The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners วารสารวิจัย มข. 15 (8) : สิงหาคม 2553
Table 5. RawCount,Percentage,andNormedCountper10,000WordsofSemanticCategories
In addition,when comparedwith theUS
studentcorpus,theThailearnercorpuscontainedtwoto
four times more linking adverbials under each semantic
category than theUS student corpus. Similarly, the
occurrences of linking adverbials in the Thai learner corpus
wereconsiderablyhigherthanthecorpus-basedfindings
inLGSWE.Forexample,result/inferenceadverbialsin
the Thai learner corpus were twice as many as the instances
ofresult/inferenceinLGSWE.Enumerative/additive/
summative adverbials in the learner corpus were six
times greater thanLGSWE.Enumerative/additive/
summative adverbials in the US student corpus were
threetimesmorethaninthefindingsofLGSWE.
Distribution of syntactic forms. Figure 1
illustrates the distribution of syntactic forms of linking
adverbials in the Thai learner corpus and the US student
corpusinpercentage.Inbothcorpora,singleadverbials
accounted for the largest proportion of syntactic forms
(78.3% and 88.03% in theThai learner and theUS
studentcorporarespectively),followedbyprepositional
phrases(19.78%and11.97%)andothers(i.e.,finiteand
non-finitesuchasfirst of all and that is)(1.92%and0%).
The patterns of syntactic forms found in the two corpora
were identical to those in the academic prose presented
inLGSWE.Interestingly,therewasnoinstanceofthe
thirdsyntacticformsatallintheUSstudentcorpus.This,
however,maybeduetothesmallscaledata.
Figure 1. Syntacticrealizationsoflinkingadverbials
759The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
Positions of linking adverbials. The results
revealed that Thai learners always placed linking
adverbials in the initial position (i.e., sentence and
clausal initial positions) (100%). In contrast, itwas
foundthatintheUSstudentcorpus,participantsused
boththeinitial(72.65%)andmedial(26.94%)positions,
thoughtheinitialpositionwasmostfrequent.Thefinal
positionwasfoundonlyonce(seeWritingSample1).The
results found in the US student corpus appeared to be an
identical pattern to that of linking adverbials presented
inLGSWE.LGSWE, however, reports that thefinal
positionisaconversationalfeature(Biberetal.,1999).
(1)USStudent:#1
ThisistheideaofChecksandBalances.
Bush has found a loophole from this,
though.
Most frequent words. Table6presents raw
counts, percentages of the overall use, and normed
countsper10,000wordsofthetopfivemostfrequently
used linking adverbials in the Thai learner corpus and the
US student corpus. The linking adverbial that occurred
most frequently in the Thai learner corpus was so,which
accountedfor23.90%oftheoveralluseand35.93times
per10,000words(seeWritingSamples2-4).Also,it
was found that so washighlyusedbyUSstudents,as
thesecondmostoftenusedconnector(16.14%,12.84
timesper10,000words)(seeWritingSamples5and6).
Inaddition,itwasfoundthatthetopfivemostfrequently
usedlinkingadverbialsaccountedforoverfiftypercent
of the entire linking adverbials used in the two corpora
(53.30%and66.93%intheThailearnercorpusandthe
USstudentcorpusrespectively).Thisshowsthatboth
groups of learners rely heavily on a rather small set of
linkingadverbialsintheirwriting.Itisalsoofnotethat
whiletheUSstudentsusedthesefivefrequentwords
fairlyequallyinnumber,theThaistudentsprofoundly
dependedonthefirsttopmostfrequentword(i.e.,so).
This may show that the Thai students were not yet
proficient in using a variety of linking adverbials in
their academic writing.
Table 6. TopFiveMostFrequentlyUsedLinkingAdverbials(per10,000words)
760The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners วารสารวิจัย มข. 15 (8) : สิงหาคม 2553
(2)ThaiLearner:Score1,#15
Butthewomenmustworkedathomeand
waited for her husband came back
home,so she didn’t had an opportunity to
out off the home.
(3)ThaiLearner:Score2,#21
Besides,wehelptheothersinclass,when
we are outside the class we are still friends.
So,Ifeelsowarm.
(4)ThaiLearner:Score3,#6
All students in a group will think carefully
before they give their answers to their
friends for discussion. So,itwillmotivate
them to be active all the time.
(5)USStudent:#3
Due to the fact that society looks upon
athletessoheavily,athletesfeelpressure
toperformbetter,so they turn to unnatural
methods to enhance their performance.
(6)USStudent:#12
Themagnetislocatedjustunderthescalp,
so it could be replaced later.
Itisimportanttonotethat,eventhoughso was
alsofoundinacademicproseinLGSWE,itsfrequency
normedcountper10,000wordswasonly2instances.In
addition,so is more a characteristics of spoken language
(i.e.,34timesper10,000wordsinconversation)(Biber
et al., 1999). This is also truewith then,whichwas
relativelyfrequentlyusedbyUSstudents(i.e.,10.02times
per 10,000words,while 9 timesper 10,000words in
LGSWEinconversation)(seeWritingSamples7and8).
(7)USStudent:#4
There were sites that would focus on one
subjectand thenjumptoanother.
(8)USStudent:#9
Ifwemustkeepbuilding then why not
look at different way to help lower the
cost of what it is doing.
Research Question 2: Within the Thai learner
corpus, do higher quality essays contain more linking
adverbials?
To answer this question, quantitative and
qualitative analyses were performed. The occurrences
of linking adverbial among the three writing scores
wereanalyzedthroughaOneWayAnalysisofVariance
(ANOVA).SeeTable7 for themeansandstandard
deviations per essay for each of the three groups.
Table 7. MeansandStandardDeviationsofLinkingAdverbialsUsed(perEssay)
An alpha level of .05 was used for all analyses.
The one-wayANOVA of standardized test score
(seeTable8)revealedastatisticallysignificantmain
effect[F(2,69)=12.14,p < .05] indicating that there
weresignificantdifferencesamongtheoccurrencesof
linkingadverbialsinthethreescores.Omegasquared
( )of .376 showed that approximately38%of the
variation in occurrences of linking adverbials is
attributable to differences between writing quality.
761The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
Table 8. AnalysisofVarianceforLinkingAdverbialUsage
PosthoccomparisonsusingTukeyprocedures
were performed to determine which pairs of the three
groupmeansdiffered.TheresultsaregiveninTable9
andindicatethatwritingScore3(M=8.875)contained
significantlymore linking adverbials than Score 1
(M=2.417)andScore2(M=3.875).Theeffectsizes
for thesepairwisedifferenceswere1.854and1.436,
respectively.
Table 9. TukeyPostHocResultsandEffectSizeofLinkingAdverbialUsebyWritingScore
Qualitative analysis of the semantic categories
usedwithineachessayscore(seeTable10)showedthat
inScore1, result/inferenceaccounted for the largest
proportionoflinkingadverbialuse(53.45%).Inaddition,
in the higher quality essays,more diverse types of
linkingadverbialsandsemanticcategorieswereused,
indicatedbythewiderspreadofpercentagefiguresfor
eachsemanticcategory.Inregardstopatternsofuse,
similar patterns of linking adverbial use between Scores
1and2werefound(i.e.,result/inference>enumeration/
addition>concession/contrast);buttherewasareverse
betweenthefirsttworanksinScore3.Itisinteresting
to note that result/inference accounted for a large
proportionoflinkingadverbialsuseinScore1,butnot
Scores2and3(seeWritingSamples9and10).Inaddition,
it is interesting that apposition makes up much more of
thetotaladverbialuseinScores2and3thaninScore
1(seeWritingSamples11and12).
*p<.01
Table 10. RawCountsandPercentageofSemanticCategoryinEachScore
762The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners วารสารวิจัย มข. 15 (8) : สิงหาคม 2553
(9)ThaiLearner:Score1,#1
If students are in schoolsoruniversity,
they must wearing uniform of school.
Then, wearing uniforms is culture of
Thailand.
(10)ThaiLearner:Score1,#12
Wearinguniformsinschoolisagoodidea
and the usefulness for everybody in the
daytocome,So we are the student ought
to proud of uniforms.
(11)ThaiLearner:Score2,#17
Manykindsoftechnologythatusemoney
in their process can impact on people and
environment. for example,carcancause
the air pollution,water pollution from
many factories.
(12)ThaiLearner:Score3,#13
Inadditionhasresponsibilityaboutfamily.
Womencandoworkoutside.That is they
can help family make money.
To further determine the differences among
writing scores, types and semantic functions of each
individual linking adverbial occurring in each semantic
categorywereexamined.Similartothefindingshownby
thequantitativedata,essaysofhigherqualitycontained
a wider range of linking adverbial forms and semantic
categories; the rangeof linkingadverbials in the lower
writingqualitywasrestricted(seeTable11).Forexample,
under thecategoryof result/inference, inScore1,only
threelinkingadverbialformswereused(i.e.,so, then, and
therefore),whileinScore3avarietyoflinkingadverbials
wereemployedtoexpressthisrelationship(e.g.,for this
reason, hence, as a result, consequently, accordingly, and
thus)(seeWritingSamples13and14).Moreover,inhigher
quality essays, the use of different semantic functions
oflinkingadverbialswasfound.Forexample,inessays
ofScores2and3,thenwasusedtofulfilltwodifferent
semanticcategories:enumeration/addition(asinWriting
Sample15),andresult/inference(as inWritingSample
16).Ontheotherhand,inScore1,then was only used
asaresult/inferenceadverbial(asinWritingSample17).
Table 11.TypesandNumbersofConjunctiveAdverbialsUsedbyLearners
763The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
(13)Learnercorpus:Level3,#2
Like in the society when we go to
workwith others; this skillwill help
us to consider the other’s mind or idea.
Accordingly,wewillbeabletodealwith
the problem and our colleague easily and
happily.[result/inference]
(14)Learnercorpus:Level3,#20
sothefourththatIwilltalktoismoney
make people render a decision from
exterior or make a pricestimat of human
frommoney, for this reason people
are becoming thematerialism. [result/
inference]
(15)Learnercorpus:Level2,#9
I think everyone should to have the
cooperation. The importanting they
should to decrease an angry and they
shouldtodecreasethegreed,then return
to make a good thing for our social.
[enumeration/addition]
(16)Learnercorpus:Level3,#10
Try to make use of studying in group
andapplytouseinrealsituations,then
teamwork will support you to reach
success.[result/inference]
(17)Learnercorpus:Level1,#12
Ifstudentsgotoshoppingortotravel,the
students can wearing freedom dress such
asundershirt,shortskirtandsingletbutif
studentsareinschoolsoruniversity,they
must wearing uniform of school. Then,
wearing uniforms is culture of Thailand.
[result/inference]
Discussion and Conclusions
The present study attempted to compare the
use of linking adverbials by Thai EFL learners and US
universitystudents,andexploredhow,withinagroup
ofEFL learners, linking adverbial use varied across
essays of different quality. The results showed that
Thai learners used more linking adverbials in normed
countsper10,000wordsthannative-speakingstudents.
However, the two corpora shared several similar
featuresof linkingadverbialuse (i.e.,preferencesof
certainsemanticcategories,mostfrequentwords,and
heavyrelianceoncertainlinkingadverbials).Inspiteof
this,someofthepatternsobservedwithintheEFLstudent
and US student essays differed considerably from
thepatternsofacademicprosefromthecorpus-based
findingsreportedinBiberetal.(1999).Theanalysisof
essay quality within the learner corpus indicated that
essays of higher quality contained a higher number
andvarietyoflinkingadverbials,andawiderrangeof
semantic categories than essays of lower level quality.
As a result of the analysis of the learner corpus and
theUSstudentcorpus,severalissuesareworthnoting.
First, the similar features between the two
learner corpora need to be carefully considered. As
seen,bothcorporacontainedahighnumberofspoken
linkingadverbials(e.g.,so)andfollowedsimilarusage
patternsofsemanticcategories (i.e., result/inference,
enumeration/addition/summation/, and contrast/
concession). The patterns, however,were different
fromtheLGSWE(i.e.,result/inference,apposition,and
contrast/concession).Thesimilaritiesanddifferences
revealtwointerestingpoints.First,theuseoftheungraded
US student corpus as a comparison corpus may be
inappropriate.Asseen,manyfeaturesoflinkingadverbial
use in the US student corpus revealed some features
of ineffective use of linking adverbials in academic
764The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners วารสารวิจัย มข. 15 (8) : สิงหาคม 2553
writing(e.g.,heavyrelianceonconversationallinking
adverbials).Itisquestionablewhetherungradedessays
written by native speakers that were commonly used in
corpus studies would represent a good writing model for
comparison.Therefore,itissuggestedthatthequality
of native students’ essays included in the comparison
corpus should also be graded and only high-scored
essaysbeincludedinthecomparisoncorpus.Second,the
identical patterns produced by the two learner corpora
mayimplythatthepatterns(i.e.,theuseofenumeration/
addition/summation adverbials)may be features of
learners’ argumentative essays since these linking
adverbials were also found to be highly used by EFL
learnersasfoundinpreviousstudies(e.g.,Chen,2006;
GrangerandTyson,1996;LiuandBraine,2005).
Another point concerns the quality of learners’
essays.Aswehaveseen,essaysofhigherqualitywere
different from lower quality in certain respects. They
contained a higher number and a wider range of linking
adverbials.Inmoreeffectiveessays,differentsemantic
functions of linking adverbialswere used.Granger
(1997, 2003, 2005) has brought to our attention the
comparison between second language learners corpus
and native student corpus through her extensive works in
learnercorpora.AccordingtoGranger,theinformation
from contrastive interlanguage analyses will help provide
a better description of learner language and guidelines
for the development of pedagogical tools and methods
that meet learners’ needs. As the results of the present
studyhaveshown,learners’writingofdifferentquality
contained varied features, implying different needs
oflearners.Accordingly,writingqualityshouldbeone
crucial concern in contrastive interlanguage analyses
in order to interpret the differences being observed in
a more meaningful way and to provide appropriate
rationale for the development of pedagogical tools and
methods that better meet learners’ needs.
In addition to the discussion onwriting
quality,severalstudiesclassifiedlearners’levelsbased
upontheirlevelofeducation(e.g.,AltenbergandTapper,
1998;Boltonetal.,2002;GrangerandTyson,1996;
Tanko,2004).Forinstance,GrangerandTyson(1996)
defined “advanced” as third or fourth yearEnglish
majorstudents.However,asisseeninthisstudy,the
participantsofthisstudywereEnglishmajors:graduate
and third and fourth year undergraduate students. Their
writingperformance,however,wasmostlyat lowto
intermediatelevels(Scores1to3).Whilethecriterionof
level of education may be suitable in European contexts
duetotheirhighexposuretothetargetlanguage,this
criterion may not be applicable in other contexts such
asinAsia.Therefore,thelevelofeducationmaynotbe
an appropriate indicator of learners’ levels. Learners’
actual performances on written tests should be a more
reliable measure.
Finally, the cause for learners’ heavy use
of linking adverbials inThai learners’writing (i.e.,
over twice as many linking adverbials in the overall
frequencyastheUSstudentcorpusandLGSWE)may
haveresultedfromdifferentfactors.Itmaybepossible
that the participants perceived linking adverbials as a
mainfeatureofargumentativeessays(Castellon,2004).
Therefore, theymay impose linking adverbials onto
their writing in order to make their papers sound more
academic (Crewe, 1990;Granger andTyson, 1996).
Also,learnersmightbeawarethatlinkingadverbials
are features that essay graders depend on when grading
papers(Chiang,1999,2003;Jafarpur,1991).Another
possibility is that this may be one characteristic of
learners’ language or interlanguage in linking adverbial
use. That is, learners tend to under use linking
adverbialswhentheirlanguageproficiencyislowand
tendtooverusethemwhentheirproficiencyisimproved.
Oncetheymasterthelanguage,theywillbeabletouse
765The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
linkingadverbialsmorenaturally(i.e.,lessinnumber)
andmoreeffectively.Asseeninthisstudy,theScore
3essayscontainedthemostlinkingadverbials,while
only a fewof themwere found in Score 2 and the
leastinScore1.However,sincetheinformationabout
learners’ linking adverbials of higher quality (i.e.,
Scores4and5)isstilllacking,theoptimalnumberof
adverbials(andalsothemostimportanttypes)isleft
unknown.As such,what exactly constitutes “good”
adverbial use is unclear. This may be the reason why it
is still unfeasible to properly determine whether learners
underuseoroveruseadverbialsinpreviousstudies(e.g.,
Boltonetal.,2002;Chen,2006;Tanko,2004).Learners’
underuse and overuse can be better determined and
described understood when variability of essay quality
is taken into consideration.
Pedagogical Implications
Pedagogical implications for eachwriting
score cannot be conclusively made due to the lack of
information about optimal use of linking adverbials from
essay scores 4 and 5.Untilwe aremore informed
about linking adverbial use in essays of higher equality
(i.e.,Scores4 and5),more appropriate implications
concerning how to help learners develop effective
ways of using adverbials in their writing cannot be
obtained.However,basedontheresultsoftheoverall
characteristicsofThailearners,someimplicationscan
besuggested.Itisnecessarytoraiselearners’awareness
of the register restriction of linking adverbials (i.e.,
academicversusspoken).Theyshouldbeprovidedwith
moreexposurestoacademicregister,whichcontains
features of argumentative essays expected to be
produced by learners, and be trained to use linking
adverbialsthatarespecificallyrequiredbysuchacademic
register.Also,learnersneedtolearntheflexibilityofthe
positionoflinkingadverbials(e.g.,medialpositions).
These two issues may be achieved through the use of
authentic texts via such techniques as concordances.
TheuniquefeatureofKWIC(i.e.,key-word-in-context)
offered by concordances may increase learners’ level
of attention and provide positive evidence for learning
(formore information about the positive effect of
concordancesonsecondlanguageacquisitionseeCobb,
1997,1999;Higginsetal.,1999;TsengandLiou,2006)
Finally, the high use of certain linking
adverbials,particularlythefivetopmostfrequentwords,
seems to imply that EFL learners considerably rely on
theuseoflinkingadverbialstocreatecoherence(i.e.,
approximately twice asmany as native-speaking
students).Learnersshouldbemadeawarethattheuse
of linking adverbials is not the only means to create
coherence and that their restriction to a single type
of cohesive device may instead hinder the reader’s
comprehension. Learners should be introduced to
othertypesofcohesiveties(e.g.,lexicalcohesionand
reference) and learn to apply them to strengthen the
coherence of text in accordance with the use of linking
adverbials.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies
Thisstudyislimitedbythesizeofthetwo
corpora. The generalizability of the findingsmay,
therefore,belimited.Eventhoughitisnotclearhow
manyessaysshouldbeincludedinthistypeofresearch,
a great number of writing samples may provide a more
elaborative picture of EFL learners’ linking adverbial
usage. A further source of limitation is that the
participants of this study were homogeneous in terms
of theirfirst language.Thehomogeneityof learners’
linguistic background may have some impact on their
usage patterns and features found in each writing score.
For future research, studies with larger-
scale,corpus-baseddataonforeignlanguagelearners
766The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners วารสารวิจัย มข. 15 (8) : สิงหาคม 2553
will provide a more comprehensive picture of linking
adverbial use in this group of learners. Another possible
research direction is to probe into the investigation
of and the construction of an appropriate comparison
corpus forEFL learners’ linking adverbial use.One
important feature of a comparison corpus arising from
the results of this study is the use of argumentative essays
whichhavebeenratedashighinquality;thistypeof
comparison corpus has not yet been constructed and
researchedinpreviousstudies.Itishopedthatwiththe
knowledge of an appropriate comparison corpus and
theconstructionof suchacorpus, theunderstanding
of characteristics of foreign language learners’ linking
adverbial use will be enhanced. Since this study
analyzedlearners’essaysofScores1,2,and3,itwill
alsobenefitthefieldmoreifessaysofScores4and5are
examined and compared with the results from the lower
levels. The current study focused mainly on learners’
frequentuseoflinkingadverbials;itleavesspacefor
more questions regarding the effectiveness of learners’
use of linking adverbials and other types of cohesive
tiesinargumentativeessays.Finally,recruitingwriting
samples of EFL learners from different linguistic
backgrounds may provide a more complete picture of
EFL learners’ linking adverbial use of different writing
quality.Inaddition,comparisonsoflinkingadverbial
use across language backgrounds can be better made.
This will also contribute to our understanding of the
rolesofthefirstlanguageonlinkingadverbialusage.
Acknowledgement
IwouldliketothankDr.WilliamCrawford
for allowingme to use hisLearnerCorpus ofThai
learnersandDr.ErkanKarabacakandhisstudentsfor
their permission to use their essays in my study.
References
Altenberg,B.andTapper,M.1998.Theuseofadverbial
connectors in advanced Swedish learners’
writing.InS.Granger(Ed.),Learner English
on computer(pp.80-93).Harlow:Addison
WesleyLongmanLimited.
Biber,D.,Conrad,S. andReppen,R.1998.Corpus
linguistics: Investigating language structure
and use.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Biber,D.,Johansson,S.,Leech,G.,Conrad,S.,andFinegan,
E.1999.Longman grammar of spoken and
written English. Harlow:PearsonEducation.
Bolton,K.,Nelson,G., andHung, J.2002.Acorpus-
based study of connectors in student writing:
Research from the InternationalCorpus of
EnglishinHongKong(ICE-HK).International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics7(2):165-182.
Castellon, H. 2004. Argumentative strategies in
administrative texts. Revista de Llengua
I Dret 42(1): 65 – 89.Abstract retrieved
November22,2006,fromCSALinguistics
andLanguageBehavior
Chen,C. 2006.Theuse of linking adverbials in the
academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL
learners. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics11(1):113-130.
Chiang,S. 1999.Assessing grammatical and textual
features inL2writing samples: The case
of French as a foreign language. Modern
Language Journal 83(3):291-232.
Chiang,S.2003.Theimportanceofcohesiveconditions
to perception of writing quality at the early
stages of foreign language learning. System
31(4):471-484.
Cobb,T.1997.Isthereanymeasurablelearningfrom
hands-onconcordancing?System25(3):301-315.
767The Use of Linking Adverbials in the Argumentative Essays
of Thai EFL Learners
KKU Res J 15 (78) : August 2010
Cobb,T.1999.Breadthanddepthoflexicalacquisition
with hands-on concordancing.Computer
Assisted Language Learning 4(4):345-360.
Conrad,S.M.1999.Theimportanceofcorpus-based
research for language teachers. System 27(1):
1-18.
Crewe,W.J.1990.Theillogicoflogicalconnectors.
ELT Journal44(4):316-325.
Granger,S.andTyson,S.1996.Connectorusageinthe
English essay writing of native and nonnative
EFL speakers of English. World Englishes
15(1):17-27.
Granger,S.1997.Onidentifyingthesyntacticanddiscourse
features of participle clauses in academic
English:nativeandnon-nativewriterscompared.
InJ.Aarts,I.deMönnink,andH.Wekker(Eds.),
Studies in English language and teaching
(pp.185-198).Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Granger,S.2003.TheInternationalCorpusofLearner
English: A new resource for foreign language
learning and teaching and second language
acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly
37(4):538-546.
Granger,S.2005.A plurilingual and multicultural
perspective on learner corpus research.
Paperpresentedat theMultilingualismand
AppliedComparativeLinguisticsConference,
Brussels,8-10February2005.
Halliday,M.A.K.andHasan,R.1976.Cohesion in
English. London: Longman.
Halliday,M.A.K.2004.Introduction to functional
grammar (4 th ed). New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Higgins, J. J.,Lawrie,A.M., andWhite,G. 1999.
Recognising coherence: The use of a text
game to measure and reinforce awareness of
coherence in text. System27(4):339-349.
Jafarpur,A.1991.Cohesivenessasabasisforevaluating
compositions. System 19(4):459–465.
Kang,J.Y.2005.WrittennarrativesasanindexofL2
competenceinKoreanEFLlearners.Journal
of Second Language Writing 14(3):259-279.
Lorenz,G. 1998.Overstatement in advanced learners'
writing: Stylistic aspects of adjective
intensification. InS.Granger (ed.),Learner
English on computer (pp. 53-66).London:
Longman.
Liu,M. andBraine,G. 2005.Cohesive features in
argumentativewritingproducedbyChinese
undergraduates. System 33(4):623-636.
McCarthy,M.1991.Discourse analysis for language
teachers.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Milton,J.andTsang,E.1993.ACorpus-basedstudyof
logical connectors in EFL students’ writing:
Directionsforfutureresearch.InR.Pemberton
andE.S.C.Tsang(Eds.),Studies in lexis
(pp.215-246).HongKong:TheHongKong
University of Science and Technology.
Tanko,G.2004.TheuseofadverbialconnectorsinHungarian
university students’ argumentative essays. In
J.M.Sinclair (Ed.),How to use corpora in
language teaching(pp.157-184).Philadelphia:
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.
Tseng,Y., andLiou,H. 2006.The effect of online
conjunction materials on college EFL
students’ writing. System 34(2):270-283.
Weigle, S.C. 2002.Assessing writing.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Wikborg, E. (1990). Types of coherence breaks
in Swedish student writing: misleading
paragraph division. InU.Connor, andA.
M. Johns (Eds.),Coherence in writing:
Research pedagogical perspectives (pp.
131-149).Alexandria,VA:TESOLInc.